Hello!
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Stuart Marks
wrote:
> I've gone ahead and added this to the implementation note section of
> Stream.concat
>
> + * Subsequent changes to the sequential/parallel execution mode of
> the
> + * returned stream are not guaranteed to be propagated to the
I've gone ahead and added this to the implementation note section of
Stream.concat
+ * Subsequent changes to the sequential/parallel execution mode of the
+ * returned stream are not guaranteed to be propagated to the input
streams.
+ *
and I've pushed the change.
The situation wi
Hi all,
Please review this API enhancement that adds streams support to
java.util.Scanner.
Scanner is essentially a regular expression matcher that matches over arbitrary
input (e.g., from a file) instead of a fixed string like Matcher. Scanner will
read and buffer additional input as necessa
Hi Frank,
That looks fine. However, instead of appending an additional directory
"utests", you could make the paths shorter by removing "javax/xml" and
"org/w3c" or "org/xml". The short names are good enough to represent the
API names, test/javax/xml/jaxp/unittest/parsers for example, is easil
+1
Paul.
On 3 Aug 2015, at 05:19, joe darcy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> With the fix for
>
>JDK-8076112: Add @HotSpotIntrinsicCandidate annotation to indicate
> methods for which Java Runtime has intrinsics
>
> the sources for the libraries clearly indicate which methods might have
> intri
Hello Daniel,
The review was re-uploaded as specdiff indeed discovered a couple of
unwanted changes (in 'InitialContext' and 'ReferralException'), so your
and Pavel's recommendations were very useful, thanks.
webrev (please update the web-page):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132877/we
FYI:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jigsaw-dev/2015-August/004433.html
(Please reply on jigsaw-dev rather than on jdk9-dev or core-libs-dev.)
- Mark
Hi Chris
On 04.08.2015 13:29, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Alexander,
Wow, that's a lot of boiler plate for a manual test. Surely a
README.txt, or similar would be sufficient?
I noticed that with your changes, now this test has a dependency on
the jdk.desktop module ( imports from java.awt.* ). Is
On 4 Aug 2015, at 13:42, Tagir Valeev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> You can do it here:
>
> http://bugreport.java.com/
>
> (Write access to the Java Bug System requires OpenJDK author status.)
>
> Thank you for the clarification. I filed the issue with Review ID: JI-9023040.
>
Thanks, and here it
Hello!
You can do it here:
>
> http://bugreport.java.com/
>
> (Write access to the Java Bug System requires OpenJDK author status.)
>
Thank you for the clarification. I filed the issue with Review ID:
JI-9023040.
> It’s probably because people are busy. If you have it can you forward me
> (pe
On 4 Aug 2015, at 11:18, Tagir Valeev wrote:
> Hello, Paul.
>
> I think I have no access rights to do it.
You can do it here:
http://bugreport.java.com/
(Write access to the Java Bug System requires OpenJDK author status.)
> Should I have to sign an OCA for this?
No.
> I submitted the
Alexander,
Wow, that's a lot of boiler plate for a manual test. Surely a
README.txt, or similar would be sufficient?
I noticed that with your changes, now this test has a dependency on the
jdk.desktop module ( imports from java.awt.* ). Is it really necessary
to have a dialog window pop-up?
Hi Alexander,
src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/File.java
1.
- *
- * new File( f.{@link #toURI()
toURI}()).equals( f.{@link #getAbsoluteFile()
getAbsoluteFile}())
- *
+ *
+ * {@code new File(f.}{@link
+ * #toURI() toURI}{@code ()).equals(f.}{@link
+ * #getAbs
Hello, Paul.
I think I have no access rights to do it. Should I have to sign an OCA for
this? I submitted the signed OCA to oracle-ca...@oracle.com last week (as
you suggested in ConstantSpliterator discussion), but still got no
response. Probably I did something wrong.
With best regards,
Tagir V
Hi Alexander,
I had a look at
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8132877/webrev.01/jdk.patch, and
there's nothing that caught my eye.
However - it would be good if you could generate a specdiff so that
we could verify that no mistake has crept in.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 03/08/15 17:3
Hi Tagir,
Can you log an issue?
Thanks,
Paul.
On 4 Aug 2015, at 06:47, Tagir Valeev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The PriorityQueue class iterator() returns elements in no particular order.
> This is explicitly stated in JavaDoc for iterator() method [1] as well as
> in class description [2]. However i
On 4 Aug 2015, at 09:20, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2015, at 01:09, Stuart Marks wrote:
>
>> Hi Tagir,
>>
>> Interesting issues.
>>
>> Regarding Stream.concat, it may be that, today, changes to the
>> sequential/parallel execution mode aren't propagated to the streams being
>> concat
On 31 Jul 2015, at 23:19, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The sequential() and parallel() methods on a stream set the execution mode
> for the entire pipeline. Unfortunately this isn't particularly clear from the
> documentation. This has been a recurring question. Please review this change
On 4 Aug 2015, at 01:09, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi Tagir,
>
> Interesting issues.
>
> Regarding Stream.concat, it may be that, today, changes to the
> sequential/parallel execution mode aren't propagated to the streams being
> concatenated.
The execution mode is propagated if either stream t
19 matches
Mail list logo
